To be honest, I actually I do find the posts somewhat entertaining. If this kid were writing a novel rather than trolling, I'd expect a pretty decent piece of literature to result. There's a nice blend of imagination, misdirection, and vocabulary that just appeals to me. I greatly prefer this to the post immediately below (as I write this) which includes "jason has a firm grip on shitstick".

2700ÂC is not just infernal I'd think. That temperature is nearly half the temperature of the sun's photosphere (5500ÂC). Iron melts at 1538ÂC, and boils at 2862ÂC. There could be clouds of iron vapor and rains of molten iron there. If it had any kind of atmosphere it would likely be made up of iron and silicon vapor.

If it had any kind of atmosphere it would likely be made up of iron and silicon vapor.

Interesting... it is said that silicon-based organic chemistry life is impossible because, unlike CO2, SiO2 is not a gas but a rock. Well, it seems now we have found a place where SiO2 actually is a gas...

If it had any kind of atmosphere it would likely be made up of iron and silicon vapor.

Interesting... it is said that silicon-based organic chemistry life is impossible because, unlike CO2, SiO2 is not a gas but a rock. Well, it seems now we have found a place where SiO2 actually is a gas...

Sodium Oxide is too low temperature, but I think Li2O might have potential. Does anyone know the triple point of Lithium Oxide?

One could argue that 'infra-red' covers absolutely everything below red on the spectrum; but the accepted definition starts calling them 'microwaves' at some point. Cosmic background radiation mostly falls into that camp, below IR; but that is very chilly indeed...

Earth-like but significantly bigger than earth. The planet in question is 8 times the mass of Earth with twice the radius so roughly the same density. It might only be a factor of 8 in mass but if you saw a person with 8 times the average mass, say ~600kg, you'd certainly call them super-sized! As for temperature Venus is hotter than Earth but with a surface temperature of 460C it's decidedly nippy compared to the planet in question which is just over 1700C.

The problem here is one of nomenclature and trying to define different terms for planets. In our Solar System there are no "super-Earth" sized planets, so until exo-solar planets were discovered there was no need for any classification for planets that sized. Basically there is a need to define planets smaller than the "small gas giants" like Neptune and Uranus and something larger than the size of the Earth or Venus.

Currently that is being called "Super Earth" because it shares many more characteristics

Try this: super [etymonline.com]. As a prefix, it simple means more, over, above or beyond. We have 2 kinds of planets in the Solar System: rocky and gas giant. Earth is the largest of our rocky planets, you can think of it as the flagship. So this exo is an Earth-class planet, only 8 times heavier (that's closer to a full order of magnitude than half). A super-Earth. A , where the baseline is Earth. Get it?

We have no idea if they are really inhospitable to life. They are merely inhospitable to life as we know it. But, the bare fact is we don't know much, we have only a single working model to compare against which is hardly a scientific sample to draw any conclusions with.

The dip when the planet is covering the sun shoud be bigger, assuming the sun is hotter than the planet. Sun before planet => intensity = intenisty of only the sun. Sun behind planet => intensity = intensity of the sun - intensity of blocked part of the sun + intensity of the planet sun and planet besides eachother => intensity = sun + planet